Any other posts related to the 9 steps to financial freedom? Thanks….

I agree 100%. I work for an oil field service company. Taking the shackles off the oil companies and allowing them to drill for gas and oil anywhere (on land AND off-shore) would be a huge stimulus to our economy.

Trouble is, the environmentalists (the 21st century fascists)do not want any drilling anywhere and Obama is beholding to them as a voting block. Obama does what is politically correct, not economically correct.

I agree with your math and the idea that I, as an individual, probably will never even see a terrorist up close and personal.

I’d remind you, however, that two people tied up Washington DC, killed 11, with one rifle. Also, Bombay was brought to a halt and severly damaged by a company-sized element of commandos.

19 people killed 3,000 on 911. It is now theoretically possible with biological weapons to kill millions.

Whether I “fear” terrorists isn’t the point; I don’t lie awake at night thinking about it. I do feel they will hit us again unless we take strong steps to nullify their threat. I also truly believe that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel.

All this off-topic (Smoot-Hawley), but another 911 or worse would have a debilitating effect on our economy, now in recession (Obama would say its the worst since the Pre-Cambrian Era).

I go about my day not even giving a second thought (or first for that matter) as to what some nut in Oman is concocting. I worry far more about what the government is trying to do. The government is a far greater threat to my safety than Osama bin Laden.

Do this mental exercise: how many Muslim terrorists do you think are in the world today. Use any number you want. Then, work out the percentage of terrorists that are in the US, again use any figure you want. Then divide that by 300,000,000 and that is the odds of you coming into contact, let along being harmed by, a terrorist in the US. Pretty small.

So, no. I do not fear Muslim terrorists. Besides, if I did, that would sort of be the point of terrorism, heh? I’d rather show them up and have a barbecue!

Give me liberty, or give me checkpoints at the airport so I can feel safer, that I might not be hurt by madmen from a foreign culture and religion? I am not that xenophobic.

In all respect, since you did get me laughing at the beginning of this thread.

G-

No one likes war (least of all the soldiers who have to fight in them), but politicians see war as diplomacy by other means. Never trust a pol who claims that comabat is “off the table”.

Gerard, I beg to differ. Radical muslims have and will continue to have a distinct threat to our civilian population. They can’t defeat us militarily, of course, so they won’t go toe-to-toe with our soldiers, but they will use terrorism to make an impact on our politicians. Obama has indicated that talking to terrorists will have a bigger and better impact than killing them. I think terrorists (the radical muslims) see diplomacy as weakness.

I am in no danger from Mexican migrant workers or Chinese factory workers either especially since they don’t even profess a desire to harm me.

The right has its bugaboos and so does the left. I see no real difference.

But hey, that’s just me.

G-

Obama, on the other hand, continues to place the race and poverty cards. There will always be a small faction of people who are racist and another small faction of those who are poor.

Both factions are not static; most poor people grow richer and most racists eventually see the fallacy of judging people by skin color.

Thomas Sowell wrote a great book on “Economic Facts and Fallacies” that addresses the “poverty” issue in depth.

Literally, the rest of the world has financed the increases in government, several wars and the relentless devaluation of the dollar.

You are correct, but don’t forget, the Republicans do the same thing. It is the government itself that must have perpetual crisis in order to maintain a power base. Imagine if every citizen was content and secure. Why would he need the government?

G-

As I mentioned before, the Democrats need a “crisis” in which to function. They are comprised of so many special interests that they can’t placate one group without offending another. They elevate the discussion (as Obama has done) by yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.

Obama claims we must pass the bill NOW and to fail to do so will invite catastrophe. Don’t read it or talk about it, just sign on the dotted line.

You are so correct. I actually started to laugh reading your comments. The Social Democrats are constantly saying they are “progressive” and future oriented but are trying to lurch us back to the beginning of the last century. They are a full 100 years behind the times.

When I think of the environmental movement that is trying to get us back to living in log cabins, it actual starts to sound funny. I mean, think about the organics movement and “buy local”. Yeah, let’s undo all the gains in agriculture and go back to growing our own food!

Their ideas make the Amish look futuristic.

And then to have to president say that we have to part with the same old failed ideas of the past, it starts to look like a comedy. I hope tomorrow I wake up and find it was all just a bad dream!

G-

Jonah Goldberg, in his book “Liberal Fascism”, pointed out that the Democrat Party has historically needed a “crisis” in which to further their agenda. Wilson had WW I, FDR the Great Depression, then WW II, Kennedy had the USSR and Cuba, LBJ had Vietnam and the Great Society, etc. Obama’s CoS admitted that they needed to take full advantage of the crisis.

The Democrat “stimulus” (House version) didn’t spend the majority of the money until the mid-term elections. Crisis continued . . .

Smoot-Hawley didn’t help the economy in the 1930’s, so why would it help the USA today? Is there some ulterior motive for Obama to keep the USA in recession?

It’s as if Obama wants to keep the USA barefoot and pregnant.